– Also, I’d like to ask why you think it’s ok to cause problems

– for a great Christian man like Kent Hovind?

– do you really think God will think you did him a favor?”

— Steve P

— June 10, 2017

I prefer to stick with the substantive issues rather than engage in rabbit chasing, but I will try to advance the conversation based on your comments.

You have my sympathies if you watched Brady’s videos.

NO, churches are not tax-exempt “according to the Constitution”.

They are tax-exempt as a matter of legislative grace.

And that grace is limited; churches can be liable for taxes.

In order to deal with the implications of your comment, it is important to realize that Kent Hovind was operating a private business and NOT a church or other tax-exempt organization.

I am NOT causing problems for a “great Christian man like Kent Hovind”.

Now, how about stating your position on one of Kent’s fundamental claims:

Proposition #2

Structuring requires 2 or more transactions of $10,000 or less,

on the same day,

that total more than $10,000.

– Kent Hovind: Affirm

– Steve P: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

We don’t need to debate that, though we could if there is time and interest.

Just try working up the nerve to explicitly state whether you “affirm” or “deny” the claim that Kent has been making for years on an issue he claims is fundamental to understanding his legal problems.

Alternatively, just try posting a specific, on-line reference and quote you think accounts for where Kent came up with his notion about that.

Like Kent says, this could be a classic example of what Kent has talked about so often.

That is, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it! I think Kent’s position on that is a lie and he’s certainly repeated it often and he may have even convinced himself it’s true, though I doubt it.

I think he knows it is false, false, false.

I think many of his people know it is false, false, false, and that is one reason why they won’t come out and even attempt to provide a legal basis for the claim.

3.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 10, 2017

.

If you are thinking I got it wrong, Steve, we can possibly discuss this proposition as well.

Churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

– Steve P: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

4.

From: Steve P

Date: June 10, 2017

.

I work hard for a living, I don’t really have time to humor your vendetta.

I get taxed 30% and more.

Perhaps I’ll do some research later about tax exempt churches.

5.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 10, 2017

.

It was up to you whether or not to get serious about these important public issues.

You didn’t have to offer lame diversions/explanations as to why you have chosen to move on.

Thanks for the demonstration.

6.

From: Steve P

Date: June 11, 2017

I guess my comment was a little too negative, a little too early.

let’s call it a preemptive strike.

But then again, we both know that’s how the conversation will end.

Don’t make me watch Brady’s 12 hour video again.

Okay……….so i say churches are tax exempt, you say they’re not.

We can end the conversation there, or you can post why you think churches are not tax exempt.

I don’t have any other arguments except what’s in Brady’s video.

If you don’t explain….I’ll just continue thinking that you’re a lost evil person.

God is in control. hate the sin, love the sinner.

7.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 11, 2017

I guess you really don’t know how these things most appropriately are designed to work, Steve.

You are still dodging and weaving and trying to keep from facing your obligations in these matters.

You now write, in part:

– “Okay……….so i say churches are tax exempt,

– you say they’re not. We can end the conversation

– there, or you can post why you think churches are

– not tax exempt.”

NOPE! NOPE! NOPE!

You wrote, earlier, and in part:

– “I watched the Brady Byrum videos a long time ago,

– so i can’t remember everything. but I think churches

– are tax EXEMPT according to the u.s constitution.”

See the difference?

I submitted the following proposition to try and get you to advance that conversation:

Churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

– Steve P: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

That’s your proposition, Steve.

All I have to do, if it be the case, as it is so far, is point out that you have offered nothing to support your proposition.

You are welcome to try and I will either accept your position if there is something to support it or try to explain why you failed to support your claim.

I also note that you have also offered nothing, wherein you follow a long line of others including Kent Hovind himself, to support Kent Hovind’s structuring proposition.

.

.

8.

From: Steve P

Date: June 11, 2017

.

I have referred to Brady’s video.

I figured you would know what the argument looks like.

But it seems i’ll have to find the law i was referring to.

I’ll get back later.

.

9.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 11, 2017

.

I’ll look forward to some substantive post from you should you care to make one.

For now, you remind me of those who are always talking about some miracle worker “over somewhere else”.

Bwahahahahhaaha!

If you want to make you own argument in support of your proposition, fine with me.

If you want to provide a time marked link and quote as to something you want to take as your own from Brady, that’s fine with me, too.

I’m not going to guess what you might be talking about hidden in 12 hours of video that Kent is desperate to get people to listen to and follow the directions at the end.

Support your proposition, or not!

.

.

10.

From: Steve P.

Date: June 12, 2017

.

Amendment I Congress shall make NO LAW

respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF;

or abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press;

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and

to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

.

11.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 13, 2017

.

I am familiar with the 1st Amendment. Here’s the proposition again for your ready reference; your proposition, Steve P.

Churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

– Steve P: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

Quoting the 1st Amendment is not an argument and does not compel one to reach the conclusion:

Therefore, churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

The 1st Amendment says nothing about taxing churches or providing churches with tax-exemptions.

You are welcome to try again.

–

12.

.

From: Steve P.

Date: June 14, 2017

.

You chose to ignore the “no law” and “free excercise” parts.

my interpretation of the 1st amendment is basically….”leave churches alone”.

Which I believe is also the same interpretation the usa has had for a long time…..proven by tax exempt churches throughout history.

I’m done debating the law with you Robert.

Instead of seeing the corruption of the government, you prefer to pick on the people.

what does that say about you?

it says, you are part of the government.

why is your loyalty to the government?

because they paid you very well for many years.

Why should you care now that you don’t work for them anymore?

because you want to justify all the lives you destroyed.

You call yourself a Christian, but what kind of Christian are you?

a pharisee or a fake.

.

.

13.

.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 14, 2017

.

I’ll take your comment, “I am done…” as your concession of the debate and admission that you have “nothing” to support your proposition apart from you opinion.

No problem.

I get it.

Here’s your proposition again for ready reference:

Churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

– Steve P: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

And here’s the 1st Amendment as you quoted it:

“Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

You concluded your side of the debate, such as it was, with:

– “You (Robert Baty) chose to ignore the “no law”

– and “free excercise” parts.

– my interpretation of the 1st amendment is basically….

– “leave churches alone”.

– Which I believe is also the same interpretation the

– usa has had for a long time…..proven by tax exempt

– churches throughout history.”

I didn’t ignore anything, Steve.

Your proposition is simply not in the 1st Amendment.

You have to simply be wrong to propose that tax-exemptions for churches is in there.

As I told you before, my position, the tax exemptions for churches in our country, that you say have been around throughout (our) history, are the result of legislative grace and are not required by the 1st Amendment.

Churches have been taxed for various things for years and years and years in this country and no successful constitutional defense has been made against it.

Thanks for the effort, Steve.

The rest of your commentary, inquiry is irrelevant to the point under consideration.

.

.

14.

.

From: Steve P

Date: June 15, 2017

.

God will judge which of us is correct.

See you in God’s court.

.

.

15.

.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 15, 2017

.

Nope!

God’s judgment is irrelevant as to our debate.

We are dealing with the affairs of men and God has given us the ability to make our own, present day judgments about such things.

Shame on you, Steve, for trying a stunt like that; but it seems common amongst some when they come out on the losing end of an argument.

You did what you could.

Your proposition cannot be legally justified.

Thanks for your participation.

.

.

16.

.

From: Steve P.

Date: June 16, 2017

.

It comes down to common sense and love….

of which you have none.

.

17.

.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 17, 2017

.

No, that’s not what it comes down to.

It’s a matter of legal sense with operates independent of love, hate or other emotions; it is what it is, and it ain’t, simply ain’t what your proposition claims.

You are welcome to think otherwise, and I again thank your for your demonstrations.

If you ever find anybody that thinks they can justify acceptance of your proposition, ask them to post their justification for consideration.

.

18.

.

From: Steve P.

Date: June 18, 2017

.

you’ve obviously never heard of “the spirit of the law” .

You’d make a great mechanic, but a horrible Christian.

.

19.

.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 18, 2017

.

If, despite your previous comment, you want to revisit your proposition and try to justify it based on “spirit”, go for it.

Saying it don’t make it so, and it isn’t so anyway.

The Constitution allows for all sorts of tax exemptions, and there are all sorts of them for all sorts of people and organizations, and the exemptions allowed to churches are matters, like the rest, of legislative grace and not because “the Constitution says so”.

And churches do not have an absolute exemption; churches, where applicable, pay a variety of taxes.

.

20.

.

From: Steve P.

Date: June 19, 2017

.

What are you a Robot?

don’t make me call you Robot Robert.

my point was clearly made in my last argument.

That I’m willing to have an honest conversation and you are not willing.

.

.

21.

.

From: Robert Baty

Date: June 19, 2017

.

You are not willing to have an open, honest conversation on the matter at hand.

You are more than willing, as you have demonstrated, to try and change the subject and start releasing your rabbits.

If we can’t adequately resolve the issue you presented for debate, the prospect of making progress on other possible subjects of mutual interest is not indicated.

Churches are tax-exempt according to the Constitution.

– Steve P: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

That’s a legal question, Steve P, and you said you were done debating the law with me.

That’s fine.

If you change your mind, regarding the debate or your position, let me know and maybe we can have an “honest conversation” about that.

.

Comments

Steve P, for Kent Hovind v. Robert Baty – Taxes! — 3 Comments

A couple of days ago, out of the blue, Steve P posted the following comment
in the comments section below that video:
.
– “Does Robert Baty accept the truths in the Kent Hovind
– is innocent DVD series by Brady Byrum?”
.
.
After an exchange between Steve and another poster about that, I posted the
following:
.
﻿That’s an odd way to try and frame an inquiry regarding
my positions on Kent’s false legal narrative and the antics
of Brady Byrum in trying to support it.
.
Of course I support the “truths in the Kent Hovind is
innocent DVD series by Brady Byrum”.
.
However, the whole series is legally and fundamentally flawed.
.
Neither Kent nor Brady will come out, come clean and face me
on the substantive matters involved in Kent’s false legal
narrative and/or related matters.
.
If you have an interest in seriously pursuing one or more of
those issues, let me know.
.http://kehvrlb.com/kent-hovind-v-robert-baty-the-challenge-in-65-propositions
.

“Of course I support the “truths in the Kent Hovind
is innocent DVD series by Brady Byrum”.”
.
This statement is going to be misread and recirculated as your affirmation
of Hovind’s innocence.
.
I’d consider editing the heck out of it.

@ PlutoDog,
.
I consider that prospect in choosing my words.
.
I did, of course, in my further response qualify it as to what
I meant and tried to point out why such a question was not
really properly framed as far as a discussion of the merits
of Brady’s work.
.
You can’t really do a whole lot about what some people want to
make of such things, especially if they are inclined to lying
for Hovind.
.
I think, at least for now, I’ll let it pass as is and we’ll
see if your prophesy is seen to have some fulfillment.
.